The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Spirit Flight 321[edit]

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Mr. Preston had a good reason for creating the article, but not every aviation incident merits a detailed article and permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert notability, nor have the sources to attest to it. Nothing of significance happened in the incident, other than the fact that it occurred. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surly concessious wouldn't delete British Airways Flight 38, same type of accident, and no fatalities and and minimal injuries, would it? If this article goes, then British Airways Flight 38 by same rational.Patcat88 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BA38 is different in that it is the first hull loss of a 777 in about a decade of operations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BA38 is also different, in that the cause (power loss) is notable and may have implications for 777s (or fly-by-wire planes in general), depending on what caused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination. --Howard the Duck 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more people can find information on Wikipedia, the better. I do not understand the mentality of wishing to delete information such as this. It may be minor in terms of notability, but it is far less *trivial* than a lot of content on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, it was not fatal and according to the link no injuries. Aircraft overan runway in windy conditions, not that unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the closing admin: this incident is automatically presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's official guideline because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For this incident, there are at least seven independent reliable sources with coverage of this incident. That makes the incident notable.[1] - Neparis (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; reliable sourcing and verifiability are clearly met, and notability is due to the wide public interest in aviation safety incidents involving scheduled air carriers. (A similar incident on a GA or corporate aircraft would probably not be notable). --MCB (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete rebuild it as a WikiNews article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument is an example of systemic bias. It may not be notable in US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ, but remember that English Wikipedia is not US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ-only Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have an Air Canada flight at AfD as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.